After interviewing Infinity Ward's Robert Bowling at E3, GameFront posted what he had to say about PC support in Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3, as he describes sessions with PC gamers to discuss the direction of the upcoming military shooter sequel. His comments include the possibility of support for dedicated servers, which was not included in Modern Warfare 2, though he could not be pinned down when asked if dedicated servers were confirmed, saying: "We’re having those discussions now. I don’t want to confirm, but we’re looking to support that as much as possible." Here is a bit on their plans for PC support:

That stuff comes a little later. I can’t confirm anything yet, but right now we’re having conversations about dedicated servers, mod tools and post launch support. I can’t give you an answer yet on what will be included. In Modern Warfare 3 we added IWnet, which was all about matchmaking–with the plan to eventually add in dedicated servers. My ideal philosophy on the PC is to have matchmaking for the “mass.” Have matchmaking for the guys who just want to jump in, hit “play game” and start playing. But let’s not lose that dedicated core audience that wants the dedicated server experience. We’re looking at ways to on how to incorporate that into Modern Warfare 3. We’ve been listening a lot to our PC guys who have been very vocal since Modern Warfare 2 about what they want to see come back to our versions of the franchise.

What can I say, my tolerance for bullshit gets less and less, the older I get.

Really depends on how you look at it. I look at most of your posts as bullshit too.

You posted stating...

I'm sorry guys, this isn't going to be a very popular opinion in these parts, but I must admit to having been more impressed with what I've seen from MW3 than I have from BF3 at the moment.

But the moment someone calls you on something you said, you instantly got really pissy.

I call you on your statement that you enjoy a single-player experience with broken and useless bots, and you do the same thing.

Keeping in mind that your were trying to tout MW3 as a better single-player experience over BF3 and back that up by stating you liked the broken bots in the old games. It doesn't add up. So ya...bullshit.

Ventura wrote on Jun 9, 2011, 19:11:Single player gamers get more than just the campaign with CoD. Kinda feel I was clear on that point.

How can you make that call on BF3 when they havent announced all the features yet? It could have co-op, we don't know yet. But if people aren't a fan of the standard CoD single-player gameplay, chances are the co-op will mean little to nothing to them.

you did just nicely demonstrate why I prefer the bots.

Well, you did already demonstrate with your response to Sepharo, that you don't have very thick skin.

Ventura wrote on Jun 9, 2011, 17:22:I'll never forget at a lan piloting a chopper in Vietnam with a couple mates each on a gun out back. Awesomesauce

Uhh right. Vietnam against bots was a complete joke. Flying around in a helicopter the AI infantry didn't shoot back, they just ran along the trails in single file to get to their destination. Enemy helicopters just hovered over their launch pad (spinning in circles if I recall) until you got in range for them to care about you, by which point if you werent completely incompetent you should have shot them down already.

But hey, explains a lot about the gameplay you want.

Battlefield only have the campaign these days; once it's beat (and if you're not really into multiplayer), you just about never fire the game up again.

That would apply to just about every shooter these days, including CoD/MW. What's your point?

A CoD game to have a stronger single-player campaign? I hardly think so. It's been the same game since 2003.

Hell yeah mate. I spent more time running around with bots on my levels in the earlier Battlefield games than I did playing Black Ops and Bad Company 2 combined. I'll never forget at a lan piloting a chopper in Vietnam with a couple mates each on a gun out back. Awesomesauce

I didn't say it would have a better single player campaign, but it will have more content. Infinity Ward have been doing the spec ops missions (some of which require two playing coop), and Black Ops had both bots and zombies. Battlefield only have the campaign these days; once it's beat (and if you're not really into multiplayer), you just about never fire the game up again.

Just comes down to if you prefer "more realistic" gameplay (BF3) or more arcade-y gameplay with Michael bay-style production (mw3.) Beyond graphics and vehicles that's pretty much the deciding factor when it comes to the single player. In regards to MP gameplay is a factor, especially when taking vehicles into account, but the games also have different player counts and map styles/sizes. another thing to consider is in multiplayer, 'lone wolf' style play is whats the norm when it comes to the mw series. In the BF series things seem to be a bit more team focused.

Fair call mate, and being team/realism vs arcade/lone wolf, BF3 just leans so much more to multiplayer. Not that they won't have an engrossing single player campaign, mind you, but mw3's looks like it's the bees knees thus far. Of course, I anticipate seeing a lot more footage from both games before either one of them is released.

I spent so much more time with Black Ops than I did with Bad Company 2, these days single player (and coop) are really what's doing it for me. If they'd re-add the ability to create your own server and fill it with bots, ala Battlefield of old, I'd be all over that, but I don't think they'll let us do that again.

Mw3 single player is going to be more of the same, I don't see how it will be better than BF3, which clearly appears to be trying something a little more grand scale.

Prez wrote on Jun 8, 2011, 19:04:Kudos to them for at least taking the PC audience's concerns under consideration. MW3 will most certainly another MP-focused modern war shooter, in which case I'll have absolutely zero interest, but credit where credit is due.

Too little too late. We've been vocal before MW2 came out. They are classy enough to announce MW2 no dedicated servers on a PODCAST!

Ventura wrote on Jun 9, 2011, 05:01:If they'd re-add the ability to create your own server and fill it with bots, ala Battlefield of old, I'd be all over that, but I don't think they'll let us do that again.

What? That was credibility flying out the window. Bots...really?

A CoD game to have a stronger single-player campaign? I hardly think so. It's been the same game since 2003.

Teddy wrote on Jun 8, 2011, 20:38:The problem I had with Black Ops single player was that it was so absolutely monotonously full of action and explosions and cannon fodder enemies that I was bored out of my freaking skull despite being in the thick of crazy intense action. .......... If there's no pause, no build up, no lulls in action then there's no tension whatsoever. Games these days, particularly the CoD series seem to have lost sight of the fact that a corridor or room that has no enemies in it may just serve to make things MORE interesting and compelling than filling every single room to the brim with enemies.

Yes there must be a healthy pause in-between the action sequences. More calm down than action is fine, if executed right. Hollywood action flicks have the calm periods down pat quite well. Good songs usually have effective mood transitions, too.

Ventura wrote on Jun 8, 2011, 19:14:I'm sorry guys, this isn't going to be a very popular opinion in these parts, but I must admit to having been more impressed with what I've seen from MW3 than I have from BF3 at the moment.

If I was you I would open your eyes and look on the internet, if your one of those cod gamers that loves to hide behind walls to be protected then do not buy BF3, cos us battlefield guys will blow wall down and most probably you with it. There is no hiding behind little wooden fences or brick walls, so if you haven't go the balls to play a proper mans game then please do go play the kiddies ver of war games called COD.

Just comes down to if you prefer "more realistic" gameplay (BF3) or more arcade-y gameplay with Michael bay-style production (mw3.) Beyond graphics and vehicles that's pretty much the deciding factor when it comes to the single player. In regards to MP gameplay is a factor, especially when taking vehicles into account, but the games also have different player counts and map styles/sizes. another thing to consider is in multiplayer, 'lone wolf' style play is whats the norm when it comes to the mw series. In the BF series things seem to be a bit more team focused.

Fair call mate, and being team/realism vs arcade/lone wolf, BF3 just leans so much more to multiplayer. Not that they won't have an engrossing single player campaign, mind you, but mw3's looks like it's the bees knees thus far. Of course, I anticipate seeing a lot more footage from both games before either one of them is released.

I spent so much more time with Black Ops than I did with Bad Company 2, these days single player (and coop) are really what's doing it for me. If they'd re-add the ability to create your own server and fill it with bots, ala Battlefield of old, I'd be all over that, but I don't think they'll let us do that again.

First you were like "I've only seen this tank video" then you're all "Nah man, I've seen all the videos ever".

It's all good mate. I mean, if you can't get me on the big stuff, naturally pick on the small shit instead. I like your style, no shit, consistency is undervalued in this day and age.

I didn't mention having seen the faultline trailer because it came out before e3, and I figured we were just talking e3 footage. My bad. I'm happy to clarify for the kids in these parts. I've seen the frostbite 2 trailer also, but it's very short, and since much of it was footage taken from either the tank or faultline videos anyway, I figured it wasn't really worth mentioning. Happy Sepharo? Or you wanna pick nits some more?

I'm happy to continue to discuss BF3 vs MW3, and I'm open to reasonable comments and willing to consider both sides of the coin, but please, can we make it adults only from here onwards?

Just comes down to if you prefer "more realistic" gameplay (BF3) or more arcade-y gameplay with Michael bay-style production (mw3.) Beyond graphics and vehicles that's pretty much the deciding factor when it comes to the single player. In regards to MP gameplay is a factor, especially when taking vehicles into account, but the games also have different player counts and map styles/sizes. another thing to consider is in multiplayer, 'lone wolf' style play is whats the norm when it comes to the mw series. In the BF series things seem to be a bit more team focused.

First you were like "I've only seen this tank video" then you're all "Nah man, I've seen all the videos ever".

It's all good mate. I mean, if you can't get me on the big stuff, naturally pick on the small shit instead. I like your style, no shit, consistency is undervalued in this day and age.

I didn't mention having seen the faultline trailer because it came out before e3, and I figured we were just talking e3 footage. My bad. I'm happy to clarify for the kids in these parts. I've seen the frostbite 2 trailer also, but it's very short, and since much of it was footage taken from either the tank or faultline videos anyway, I figured it wasn't really worth mentioning. Happy Sepharo? Or you wanna pick nits some more?

I'm happy to continue to discuss BF3 vs MW3, and I'm open to reasonable comments and willing to consider both sides of the coin, but please, can we make it adults only from here onwards?

Creston wrote on Jun 8, 2011, 23:32:Translation: We're a little worried that BF3 may steal all of our PC multiplayer customers, so let me make a lot of vague, empty statements that make it appear as if I really give a shit about you.

Creston

That's how I read it, too.It's almost too little too late already, BF3 is giving players what they want without having to beg for it, or leaving them in the dark.there is also no concerns about monthly fees.